CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > Siemens > STAR-CCM+

DFBI vs DEM

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   December 1, 2020, 18:51
Default DFBI vs DEM
  #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 5
SiemenDiemon is on a distinguished road
Hi everyone,

I'm trying to decide on a method for modelling particles in fluid flow in STAR-CCM+. I'm new to this but having read through the documentation it seems the choice is between DEM (discrete element method) or DFBI (dynamic fluid-body interaction). I am being advised that DFBI is the more accurate of the two (and hence also more computationally intensive) but am curious what everyone else thinks. I'm guessing there would be cases where one is preferable over the other. For example the particle is morphable which makes me err towards DFBI.

As an aside, it also seems like DEM makes uses of some fairly complicated empirically derived formulae for calculating forces on a particle (e.g. lift coefficients) whereas DFBI seems to not do this. Am I understanding correctly that DFBI then just calculates the forces on a particle via the stress tensor?

Cheers!
SiemenDiemon is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 3, 2020, 04:20
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Ping
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 556
Rep Power: 20
ping is on a distinguished road
dbfi is not really meant for use as a method to create and model particles since you would generally only have one or free bodies, but i have seen it done with maybe a dozen balls bouncing off each other - painful to setup unless a macro is used. the flow around the bodies is captured much better assume your overset meshes are good. but the contact physics in dbfi is very basic compared to dem.
dem is designed to model many particles together with complex interactions including contact, breakup, thermal, chemistry etc but as the particle numbers get up to 1e6 it gets very slow unless you have a big cluster.
ping is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 24, 2021, 19:14
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 18
Rep Power: 5
SiemenDiemon is on a distinguished road
Thanks Ping.

Yep, that seems to be the case. It's a shame that DEM is more suited for modelling particles as I'm struggling to find a way in the DEM framework to integrate the stress tensor over the surface of each particle to find the force more exactly, rather than using the built-in DEM force models which make some assumptions about the geometry of the particles.
SiemenDiemon is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Modeling the gas flow through the packed bed of DEM particles Legat STAR-CCM+ 6 January 17, 2024 09:58
Two-Way coupled DEM with heat transfer - Which is good?:+ LIGGHTS/OpenFOAM/CFDEM/<??> yesaswi92 Main CFD Forum 1 November 27, 2023 05:49
Two-Way coupled DEM with heat transfer - Which is good? - disscus now minhbaba Main CFD Forum 0 December 1, 2018 00:50
Aligning a region with dfbi motion of body without dfbi superposed rotation rockydongre STAR-CCM+ 2 July 21, 2014 02:11
Wind Turbine DFBI BKaiser STAR-CCM+ 8 August 1, 2013 21:47


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:03.